DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 22, 25-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “having a thermal decomposition imitation temperature of higher than 200 C” is unclear because does it modify the liquid polymer or the entire resin composition? Upon consultation with the specification, examiner assumes it is the entire resin composition. For clarity, please amend the statement to read “wherein the resin composition has a thermal decomposition…”
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11, 13, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamori et al (WO 2020/202909, please refer to US 2022/0025142 for English language equivalent and mapping).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Miyamori teaches a resin composition comprising cellulose nanofiber ([0022] and [0028]), a resin ([0036]) and a polymer ([0029]). Miyamori teaches that the polymer can have a glass transition temperature which ranges from -130 to 120 C ([0029]). Given this range, Miyamori teaches a polymer which can be liquid. Miyamori teaches that the molding temperature ranges from 140 to 200 C ([0068]), and therefore, the thermal decomposition initiation temperature would inherently be greater than 200C.
Miyamori fails to specifically exemplify the recited resin. However, Miyamori discloses each of the components of the resin, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the resin compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the resin composition suggested by Miyamori, including the claimed invention. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Miyamori to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2-3, Miyamori teaches that the liquid polymer is a liquid diene rubber ([0033]).
Regarding claim 11, Miyamori teaches that the fiber diameter is from 2 nm to 5 microns ([0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Miyamori teaches that the liquid polymer is covalently bonded to the cellulose fiber ([0050]). Given that all three components are melt-mixed together, the liquid polymer would inherently form an interface between the fiber and the resin.
Regarding claim 29, Miyamori does not teach a surfactant.
Regarding claim 31, please refer to the above rejection for the compositional components of this claim. Miyamori teaches a method for producing a resin composition according to claim 1 where the method includes hot kneading the composition ([0050]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruendken et al (US 2018/0334521) in view of Ono et al (WO 2019/230970, please refer to US 2021/0222006 for English language equivalent and mapping).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7 and 17, Gruendken teaches a resin composition comprising:
A thermoplastic resin ([0062])
a liquid polymer such as an SBR ([0116]-[0117]) with a calculated amount of the styrene from 0 to 50 % by mass ([0119])
Gruendken teaches that the processing temperature can range from 180C to 270C ([0161]), therefore, the thermal decomposition initiation temperature is greater than 200 C.
Gruendken teaches that organic fillers can be added to the composition ([0152]), however fails to teach the addition of cellulose nanofibers.
Ono teaches cellulose nanofibers (Abstract) which are incorporated into moldable resin bodies (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cellulose nanofibers of Ono as an additive of the composition of Gruendken. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of imparting strength to the composition (Ono, [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Gruendken teaches that the liquid diene rubber is flowable at room temperature ([0142]) and this characteristic would overlap the claimed viscosity range.
Regarding claim 8, Gruendken teaches that the liquid diene has a glass transition temperature from -100 C to 0 C ([0141]).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Gruendken teaches that the cellulose nanofibers have a fiber diameter from 10 nm to 1 micron and that the thermal decomposition initiation temperature of the cellulose nanofibers is greater than 270 C (Ono, [Abstract]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights